Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Take my husband but DO NOT TAKE my guns

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Take my husband but DO NOT TAKE my guns

    Norwalk Police violated the CORE Second Amendment rights of Casey Doutel when they seized her firearms during the arrest of her husband on trumped up charges.

    Keep watching this case for any civil actions that may be filed in the near future.

    Here is a brief outline of what happend to Duane and Casey Doutel.

    Staw Sequence of Events by: Duane Doutel




    Sometime in 2009, I had a regularly scheduled 3-month checkup with Perry Patel at Staw’s office. On arrival, no Perry in evidence, and ended up seeing Staw himself. I was told at that time that Perry had taken a leave of absence to “care for a sick father”, and that he’d be back. A year later, he had not returned. I had no reason at this time to doubt Staw’s veracity. On inquiry, I was told that Perry had indeed returned and was working out of the Fairfield office. I didn’t check this, but do not believe this to be the case.


    In September of 2010, upon going to Staw’s office for another regularly scheduled diabetic checkup, I was told that the ‘good doctor’ could no longer accept insurance, and that I’d have to pay cash and submit out-of-network paperwork to my insurance company to get reimbursed at a reduced rate. I was told that this was so because there was ‘a minor mixup’ and that the “good doctor” was in court trying to get it resolved. He also stated that his office would submit the out-of-network forms for me. Since this was very short notice, I opted to pay cash and go the out-of-network route, rather than put off a necessary diabetes checkup.



    Throughout much of 2010, I had been seeing Dr. Altman for a torn right rotator cuff; by mid-January of 2011, he had determined the condition would require surgery, and instructed me to schedule a pre-op physical with my primary care physician, which I did. I had not had time to seek a new physician with all the inherent inconvenience of doing so, and needed the physical for a surgery tentatively scheduled for February 16, 2011; I scheduled an appointment with Staw for February 7, 2011.



    On February 7, 2011, I went to Staw’s office in the afternoon (around 2:00). Staw’s office did an EKG and several blood tests ordered by Dr. Altman, and was physically examined by Staw. He stated at that time that if we added a few more tests, my insurance would cover the physical in full, and stated that we should also run the Hemoglobin A1C and cholesterol tests, since it had been several months since my last ones. With all I had been dealing with, it didn’t at that time occur to me that I had not been fasting, so I allowed his technician to draw the specimens. Essentially, what this amounted to was Staw’s attempt to “up-sell” me.

    During the course of conversation, Staw casually moved my hat aside and saw my holstered firearm beneath it. He made some innocuous remark, whereupon I reminded him that this was not the first time he had seen it, since I had been carrying it since late 2007, and that I had a permit to carry it. This was an entirely friendly exchange. The appointment ended and I left the office.



    On the afternoon of February 9, 2011, working at home, I received a call from Staw’s office. The caller stated that some of the tests were far out of bounds and I would need to repeat them. Something just felt wrong, and I asked the receptionist to have Staw call me.
    While waiting for Staw to return my call, I began browsing the web to see if there had been any complaints about Staw, and came across a newspaper article stating that Staw had been convicted in Federal court of Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance fraud! On digging further, I found a PDF of the decision of the Department of Health and Human Services Department Appeals Board

    . It turned out that he had been billing for physical therapist and physician assistant services as though they had been physician services. Because of this, he had been forbidden to participate in Medicare/Medicaid for a period of 10 years. My private insurance plan (through my wife’s employment) and others removed him from participation in their group plans as well.

    By this point, it became very clear that I had been lied to and mislead regarding a number of things, notably the absence of Perry Patel from Staw’s practice and his inability to accept insurance anymore. This explained why Staw’s Norwalk office waiting room was always empty; it’s a rare thing these days that people can afford to pay cash for physician office visits and services, so clearly most of his other patients sought care elsewhere, as I would have done had I been aware of his conviction.

    By the time Staw returned my call in the early evening, I knew I could no longer trust him as my primary care physician. I told him that I had found out about his conviction, that I now understood why Perry had disappeared from his practice, and that he had drawn blood
    specimens for tests his staff had always led me to believe needed to be done after fasting, when I had not in fact been fasting. I told him that as of that moment, he was no longer my physician, that he should forward the results of the physical to Dr. Altman, and that Dr. Altman would make the determination as to surgery. I hung up the phone.



    On the afternoon of Tuesday, February 15, 2011, still without a firm time for the surgery the next day, I called Dr. Altman’s assistant, and was told at time that they were still not in receipt of the needed results of the physical, and that as a result, the surgery could not be placed on the firm schedule and would have to be postponed until they received the results.



    In the evening of Tuesday, February 16, 2011, still hoping to shift the surgery a few days rather than cancel it entirely, I called Staw’s office and left a voicemail message insisting that he forward the results of the physical to Dr. Altman immediately, that he had been paid for them out-of-pocket, and that he would provide them, or I would come to his office and demand them personally, and that a public argument “would not be pretty”. At no time did I imply in any way that I would harm him or his staff.



    On Wednesday, February 16, at approximately 12:20 PM, my phone rings. The caller ID says Norwalk Police Dept. Accustomed to receiving fundraising calls from them , I think nothing of picking up the phone, in spite of the fact that I was deeply involved in a programming project. An officer informs me that he wants me to come into the PD to discuss a voicemail I left with Staw’s office. I was absolutely stunned; I’ve never done anything in my life that the police would be remotely interested in, and could not conceive of anything I might have said in this case that would have warranted any attention. I said no, I would not come to the PD, whereupon the officer asked if he could come out and talk to me. At first, I said he could; but as he goes on to warn me about not being armed when he comes out, I am getting more upset about this, and reverse myself. I told him specifically not to come to my house unless had some reason to arrest me, and not to come without a warrant, still thinking he’s really just rousting me. The officer then said he would come out and arrest me. The conversation ended.



    Shortly before 1:00 PM of the same day, I receive another phone call from Norwalk PD,
    instructing me to walk out of my house unarmed and with my hands in plain sight. At this point, I informed my wife on instant messaging that I was being arrested, and followed PD instructions. On exiting my house, I observe several cops looking in the windows of the house in front of mine, and call out to them to tell them they’re at the wrong house. I was instructed to raise my hands, walk toward them and turn around, whereupon I was handcuffed and searched. At this point, I was told ‘you’re under arrest’. No Miranda warnings were given me, nor was I shown any arrest or search warrant.

    Three of the cops proceeded to walk into my house without asking permission, claiming they had to ‘clear the premises’. A couple of minutes later, I was led into my house, to find the cops already in the process of searching my house. They had already taken two .22 caliber rifles which belong to my wife, and one was in the process of attempting to empty the magazine of the Mossberg Model 500 shotgun we kept by the bedside. This is a pump-action, side-ejection port firearm; the officer was holding it upside-down, fishing one round out at a time, where he could simply have held it right-side up and worked the pump until it was empty. I remember thinking at the time how strange this was.

    They had a list of weapons they were referring to, apparently, but asked where all the weapons were. They were apparently not aware that my wife has a valid carry permit, and showed no regard whatsoever for the fact that several of the weapons they were seizing were not on their list of weapons registered to me. They took them anyway.
    I was driven to the PD and booked. While there, I asked a female officer why my Miranda rights had not been read to me, and was told

    ‘Oh, that’s only on TV; we only have to do that if we question you.’


  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    ‘Oh, that’s only on TV; we only have to do that if we question you.’ Yep, that's what the Miranda warning is for.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Norwalk PD is out of control.

    Glad you are taking the good fight to them!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Shelton
    Posts
    138
    The crazy thing about this entire case is the sad fact that the Police ACTUALLY think they are right and that they are working within the confines of the law.... Not to mention the Judge who completely disregarded the constitution and rule of law by issuing that retarded temporary ruling. I just can't seem to fathom how people who are required to follow and uphold the law can disregard it whenever they see fit and continue to get away with it.
    I guarantee you that even when you win this case and the charges are dropped and your firearms returned that as far as the judge is concerned you will have changed nothing. He will turn around and do the same thing to the next person that comes before his bench because he assumes that he can do whatever he wants because he wears a black robe and sits on the bench.

    There needs to be real consequences to the police and judges and indeed even DA's that break laws, bend statutes to their needs or ignore fundamental constitutional rights.

    The arresting officer should be fired and the rest of them that participated in the illegal search should be reprimanded and suspended without pay. Where is the common sense? where is the Due Process? Where is the justification?

    I'm thoroughly disgusted with the justice system these days and I don't see any indications that it is going to get any better. It's only getting worse. I hope you take them for everything they have. I would sue all parties involved just to make a point.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    The sad part is that an attorney is even needed in a case like this.

    A competent judge should take one look at the facts before him and immediately start reprimanding the police as well as the DA.

    Sadly, this is not how it is. Luckily, you have a great team on your side.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Only time will tell!! THANK YOU AGAIN ATTORNEY RACHEL BAIRD

    DOCKET NO: S20N-CR11-0128328-S :
    SUPERIOR COURT:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT :
    JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD - NORWALK AT NORWALK
    v.
    DUANE T. DOUTEL : JUNE 20, 2011

    MOTION FOR HEARING AND NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS FOR
    HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER

    The Defendant Duane T. Doutel, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby provides notice that subpoenas hereto attached1 have issued in the above-captioned matter for hearing at 9:30 a.m. on June 24, 2011, in the Superior Court at 17 Belden Street, Norwalk, Connecticut, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Vacate dated May 23, 2011.

    I. BACKGROUND
    At oral argument held on May 20, 2011, before The Honorable Bruce Hudock upon the state’s unnoticed Motion to Modify the Terms and Conditions of the Defendant’s release to prohibit the Defendant from possessing firearms or seeking a state permit, the Court initially asked the state to file a “written motion regarding the condition of no temporary permits as well, and I’ll hear that motion as well as these motions at the appropriate time.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 6:20-23)2 The Court then issued a “temporary order that he [Doutel] not apply for a special [sic] permit, and then I’ll [the Court] hear you on a motion for a permanent
    condition of that order.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 7:15-19) The state has not filed a “Motion for a Permanent Condition.” See also May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 10:20-23 (“Temporary order that Defendant not possess any weapons or apply for a pistol permit.”)


    FOOTNOTE 1 Harry K. Rilling, Chief of Police, Norwalk Police Department (NPD); NPD Lieutenant Thomas Materra, NPD Officer Jared Zwickler, NPD Officer Frank Reda, NPD Officer Kenneth Fludd, NPD Officer Jeremy Salley, NPD Officer William Curwen, NPD Officer James Walsh, Department of Public Safety Detective Barbara Mattson, DPS Sergeant William Krauss; Dr. Igal Staw, Janine Roy, Sandy Staw.

    II. HEARING ON THE TEMPORARY ORDER

    The Court then informed the Defendant that if the Defendant wished to file a motion then “that is your [the Defendant’s] right to do so.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 8:18) The Court informed the Defendant that the Court was “allowing you [the Defendant] the opportunity to have a full hearing. I [the Court] have indicated to you this is a temporary condition.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 8:27-9:1-2) The Court further stated: “I’ve indicated

    to you that I will entertain a motion to revise the condition. It is a temporary order.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9:10-12) The Court declined to assign a specific date for the Defendant’s hearing on the temporary order. (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9:16-17) The Court then stated its intention to “indicate to the Clerk’s office about the scheduling of the motions.” (May 20, 2011, Hr’g Tr. at 9) The matter was continued until June 24, 2011, for a status conference. The Defendant filed a Motion to Vacate Order on May 23, 2011.


    III. CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, for the reasons stated on the record at the May 20, 2011, unnoticed hearing on the state’s motion to modify the terms and conditions of the Defendant’s release, and for the reasons stated in his May 23, 2011, Motion to Vacate the Order, the Defendant herein provides his intention to go forward upon the Motion to Vacate Order at his court appearance on June 24, 2011. Although June 24, 2011, is scheduled as a status date, the failure of the state to file a “Motion for a Permanent Condition” and the absence of any interim hearing between May 23, 2011, and June 24, 2011, on the Motion to Vacate the Order the Defendant demands that a hearing proceed on June 24, 2011, or that the “temporary” order be dissolved in consideration of the state’s failure to file the “Motion for a Permanent Condition.”

    DEFENDANT

    DUANE T. DOUTEL

    BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird (CT Juris #407222)
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992


    ORDER

    The foregoing motion having been duly heard, it is hereby,


    GRANTED/DENIED.

    BY THE COURT

    _________________________________

    Judge/Clerk of the Superior Court


    CERTIFICATION

    Pursuant to Practice Book § 10-14, I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing motion
    above was served by first-class mail, postage paid, hand-delivered on June 20, 2011, to counsel
    of record as follows next:
    Office of the State’s Attorney
    17 Belden Ave
    Norwalk CT 06850-3303
    /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird

    Commissioner of the Superior Court

  7. #7
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Good luck Mr. Doutel on your court appearance on the 24th. I think you will do well.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich B View Post
    Good luck Mr. Doutel on your court appearance on the 24th. I think you will do well.
    Thanks, Rich; call me Duane, please. I only make cops and bureaucrats call me Mr. Doutel! it will depend on whether the judge rules on his personal pereferences or on the law; it's clear to me that he has a problem with keeping his word, so not at all sure he's entitled to the honorific "his honor"...

    Personally, I think he'll be pissed as hell that Rachel's going after this like a pitbull, which is how I indicated I'd like her to do things. Wouldn't know what to do without her!

    Duane

  9. #9
    Regular Member DDoutel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Mitola View Post
    The crazy thing about this entire case is the sad fact that the Police ACTUALLY think they are right and that they are working within the confines of the law.... Not to mention the Judge who completely disregarded the constitution and rule of law by issuing that retarded temporary ruling. I just can't seem to fathom how people who are required to follow and uphold the law can disregard it whenever they see fit and continue to get away with it.
    I guarantee you that even when you win this case and the charges are dropped and your firearms returned that as far as the judge is concerned you will have changed nothing. He will turn around and do the same thing to the next person that comes before his bench because he assumes that he can do whatever he wants because he wears a black robe and sits on the bench.

    There needs to be real consequences to the police and judges and indeed even DA's that break laws, bend statutes to their needs or ignore fundamental constitutional rights.

    The arresting officer should be fired and the rest of them that participated in the illegal search should be reprimanded and suspended without pay. Where is the common sense? where is the Due Process? Where is the justification?

    I'm thoroughly disgusted with the justice system these days and I don't see any indications that it is going to get any better. It's only getting worse. I hope you take them for everything they have. I would sue all parties involved just to make a point.
    Votes have consequences...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    And Norwalk Police Never took the time to respond!!!!

    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    Stonegate Professional Building
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: 860.626.9991/Fax: 860.626.9992 Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
    Toll free: 866.279.6402 Web: RachelBairdLaw.com

    May 15, 2011

    Harry W. Rilling, Chief
    Norwalk Police Department
    1 Monroe St
    Norwalk CT 06854

    Re: Return of Seized Property – Norwalk Police Department Case #11-7963

    Dear Chief Rilling:

    I represent (Redacted Name (“Mrs. Redacted”) regarding the seizure of her firearms by members of your department, absent warrant or other justification, on February 16, 2011.

    This letter is a demand for the return of the personal property lawfully owned by Mrs. Redacted and in your custody, including: (List of 1-4 firearms is redacted); and (5) Bag, Case, and Rifle Slug.

    Please contact my office to secure arrangements for the return of Mrs. Redacted’s above stated personal property. Mrs. Redacted holds a valid state permit.

    Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter. The seizure of Mrs. Redacted’s firearms has denied her security in her home and the right to defend her family.

    As the Department of Public Safety will confirm, Mrs. Redacted obtained a state permit immediately following the home invasion, sexual assaults, and murders in Cheshire due to concerns about protecting her home and family.

    Any communications regarding this matter until its resolution shall be directed to this office.

    Sincerely,

    Rachel M. Baird, Attorney

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Norwalk court schedules "FULL" hearing for june 30th at 2pm

    The scheduled hearing in this matter may be the best free entertainment available in Norwalk, CT on the afternoon of June 30th.

    Here is what's going on:

    The court after a motion filed by Attorney Rachel M. Baird has scheduled the promised "FULL" hearing on the conditions placed on Duane Doutel that he not apply for a new Permit to Carry or possess firearms.

    Thirteen (13), subpoenas have been issued to members of the Norwalk Police Department, DPS Special Licensing and Firearms Unit and the Doctor's office where Mr. Doutel is alleged to have committed the crime of Threatening in the Second Degree.

    It is also known that a Federal Civil Case will be filed very shortly in behalf of what I am now calling the "Virgin Victim".

    Duane Doutel's wife, who holds a Connecticut Permit to Carry, did nothing wrong to justify the seizure and confiscation of her firearms by members of the Norwalk Police Department. Mrs. Doutel had at the time, a core Second Amendment right to KEEP and BEAR her firearms, (IN HER HOME), regardless of what her husband may or may not have done.

    My personal belief is that this case and these facts have far reaching implications for every individual who owns or possesses firearms, particularly IN THE HOME.

    STAY TUNED TO THIS ISSUE, MORE WILL BE POSTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Looking at Norwalk's permit application, it's really not shocking.

    Their own application violates many laws/acts. Asks about tons of insane information like:

    handicap issues
    dental info
    all fingers/toes
    manner of dress (isn't that profiling?)
    neat or unkempt
    speaks with accent

    Amongst many other things.

    I posted the app on ctpistolpermitissues.com for those that may be interested.

    Norwalk is absolutely INSANE!

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    The hearing date may change

    The Norwalk court is going to set the date for a hearing today.

    The June 30th date was going to be changed to July 7th and Attorney Baird objected.

    Look for a new date for the hearing to be posted here in the next couple of days.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk, CT
    Posts
    12

    norwalk resident

    i will have to say i had no issues with getting my permit as a norwalk resident. it was processed in a timely manner and they were very friendly

  15. #15
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by djn777 View Post
    i will have to say i had no issues with getting my permit as a norwalk resident. it was processed in a timely manner and they were very friendly
    Did they make you fill out all the illegal and ridiculous paperwork signing away your rights?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Norwalk, CT
    Posts
    12

    norwalk info

    i have nothing to compare it to so i did not think it was too much info. i have no problem with them making sure i am who i am. as a person who had hair and is now bald and has a beard and then doesn't i didn't mind filling out a few questions.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by djn777 View Post
    i have nothing to compare it to so i did not think it was too much info. i have no problem with them making sure i am who i am. as a person who had hair and is now bald and has a beard and then doesn't i didn't mind filling out a few questions.
    I don't understand. They will know who you are by the state application, which is the only thing the statutes allow for.

    Why would they need to know of tattoos, amputations, skin color and such?

    Kix would know better than I do about Norwalk, but I imagine they are also one of the towns that 'requires' a rap sheet waiver, etc.

    Why would we be ok with local LEOs making up rules and laws that supersede state laws?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    ‘Oh, that’s only on TV; we only have to do that if we question you.’ Yep, that's what the Miranda warning is for.
    Yeah. Why bother with the little things like "you have the right to an attorney." Remember, this didn't take place in the US. In the Gulag, rights are just a minor annoyance to the Gestapo.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by KIX View Post
    Looking at Norwalk's permit application, it's really not shocking.

    Their own application violates many laws/acts. Asks about tons of insane information like:

    handicap issues
    dental info
    all fingers/toes
    manner of dress (isn't that profiling?)
    neat or unkempt
    speaks with accent

    Amongst many other things.

    I posted the app on ctpistolpermitissues.com for those that may be interested.

    Norwalk is absolutely INSANE!

    Jonathan
    Neat or Unkempt: Depends if I have been working in the yard, or if I am taking my wife out on the town....
    Speaks with an Accent: Every person who speaks has an accent...
    Manner of dress: Left leg first, then right leg. Followed by belt, socks, shirt (head first, then arms)...is that what they are looking for?

  20. #20
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Hair, teeth, accent, amputations, complexion, tattoos, scars and tons more.

    Not required, why treat me like a criminal just because I am exercising a right.

    If you feel comfortable filling that stuff out, fine. Personally, I don't see the need to fill out the same information that is gathered when someone is arrested just for exercising a right.

    No waivers.

    The BFPE didn't seem too thrilled with the paperwork either.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  21. #21
    Regular Member KIX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by djn777 View Post
    i have nothing to compare it to so i did not think it was too much info. i have no problem with them making sure i am who i am. as a person who had hair and is now bald and has a beard and then doesn't i didn't mind filling out a few questions.
    The form is not only not required, it's sole purpose is to demean you into thinking you're a criminal just to exercise a right.

    It is not required paperwork, neither is the photograph bit. They are treating you like a criminal. Actually, that's exactly what that form is from, old arrest paperwork.

    Jonathan
    www.ctpistolpermitissues.com - tracking all the local issuing authority, DPS and other insanity with permit issues
    www.ctgunsafety.com - my blog and growing list of links useful to gun owners (especially in Connecticut).

    Rich B: My favorite argument against OC being legal in CT is "I have never seen someone OC in CT".
    I have never seen a person drink tea from a coke bottle while standing on their head, that doesn't mean it is illegal.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    The innocent wife and her firearms

    The case of Barbara C. (Casey) Doutel involves the illegal seizure of her registered firearms on February 16, 2011.

    This case could be a very important case for those who have had their firearms siezed becuase someone else is ALEDGED to have done done something questionable.

    A draft of the Federal Complaint is being proof read as I post.

    Look for the suit against Norwalk and the involved police officers to be filed as early as today.

    More to follow.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    The May 15th letter demanding the return of Mrs. Doutel's firearms

    And Norwalk Police Never took the time to respond!!!!

    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird

    Stonegate Professional Building
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: 860.626.9991/Fax: 860.626.9992 Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
    Toll free: 866.279.6402 Web: RachelBairdLaw.com

    May 15, 2011

    Harry W. Rilling, Chief
    Norwalk Police Department
    1 Monroe St
    Norwalk CT 06854

    Re: Return of Seized Property – Norwalk Police Department Case #11-7963

    Dear Chief Rilling:

    I represent Barbara C. Doutel regarding the seizure of her firearms by members of your department, absent warrant or other justification, on February 16, 2011.

    This letter is a demand for the return of the personal property lawfully owned by Mrs. Redacted and in your custody, including: (List of 1-4 firearms is redacted); and (5) Bag, Case, and Rifle Slug.

    Please contact my office to secure arrangements for the return of Mrs. Redacted’s above stated personal property. Mrs. Doutel holds a valid state permit.

    Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this matter. The seizure of Mrs. Doutel's firearms has denied her security in her home and the right to defend her family.

    As the Department of Public Safety will confirm, Mrs. Doutel obtained a state permit immediately following the home invasion, sexual assaults, and murders in Cheshire due to concerns about protecting her home and family.

    Any communications regarding this matter until its resolution shall be directed to this office.

    Sincerely,

    Rachel M. Baird, Attorney
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 07-26-2011 at 06:16 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Casey Doutel's Federal Complaint

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT


    BARBARA C. DOUTEL,

    Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.:

    v.

    CITY OF NORWALK; CHIEF HARRY W. RILLING, :
    In His Individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT :
    THOMAS MATERRA, In His Individual and Official :
    Capacities; SERGEANT JAMES WALSH, In His :
    Individual and Official Capacities; OFFICER JARED :
    ZWICKLER, In His Individual Capacity; OFFICER :
    WILLIAM CURWEN, In His Individual Capacity; :
    OFFICER JEREMY SALLEY, In His Individual Capacity; :
    OFFICER KENNETH FLUDD, In His Individual Capacity; :
    and OFFICER FRANK REDA, In His Individual Capacity, :

    Defendants.

    DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY : JULY 25, 2011

    COMPLAINT

    INTRODUCTION

    1. This action arises from an unlawful search and seizure of firearms from the home of Plaintiff Barbara C.
    Doutel on February 16, 2011, in the City of Norwalk.

    PARTIES

    2. The Plaintiff Barbara C. Doutel (“Plaintiff”) is an individual residing at all times relevant to the
    Complaint in the City of Norwalk.

    3. The Defendant City of Norwalk (“City”) is a municipality duly organized, incorporated, and chartered

    under and pursuant to the laws of the State of Connecticut.

    4. The Defendant Harry W. Rilling (“Chief Rilling”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as

    Chief of the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his official and individual capacities.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 8

    5. The Defendant Thomas Materra (“Lieutenant Materra”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City
    as a Lieutenant of the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his official and individual capacities.

    6. The Defendant James Walsh (“Sergeant Walsh”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as a

    Sergeant in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    7. The Defendant Jared Zwickler (“Officer Zwickler”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as

    an Officer in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    8. The Defendant William Curwen (“Officer Curwen”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as

    an Officer in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    9. The Defendant Jeremy Salley (“Officer Salley”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as an

    Officer in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    10. The Defendant Kenneth Fludd (“Officer Fludd”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as an

    Officer in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    11. The Defendant Frank Reda (“Officer Reda”), at all times relevant, was employed by the City as an

    Officer in the Norwalk Police Department and is sued in his individual capacity.

    JURISDICTION

    12. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut has subject matter jurisdiction over this
    case under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) because it asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based
    on the deprivation of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

    ALLEGATIONS OF FACT


    13. The Plaintiff currently resides and did reside on February 16, 2011, with her husband Duane Doutel

    (“Doutel”) in their home at 12 Maher Drive in the City of Norwalk, Connecticut.
    14. As a consequence of and following the horrific home invasion and triple homicide which occurred in a
    Cheshire, Connecticut, single-family home on July 23, 2007, by two men released on parole by the State
    of Connecticut, the Plaintiff applied for and obtained a Connecticut Pistol Permit.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 8

    15. The Plaintiff and her husband own and possess firearms in their single-family home for personal
    protection; specifically, the Plaintiff owns a Sig Sauer P232 .380 s/n S276935, a Sig Sauer P225 9mm
    s/n M402425, a Marlin Model 31 rifle, and a Winchester rifle with a scope.

    16. On February 16, 2011, Officer Zwickler received a complaint from Internal and Respiratory Associates,

    P.C., a medical office operated by Dr. Igal Staw (“Dr. Staw”) at 83 East Avenue, Suite 302, Norwalk,
    Connecticut, regarding a voice message left at the office by Duane Doutel.

    17. Officer Zwickler learned that Duane Doutel had been a patient of Dr. Staw and listened to the voice

    message left by Duane Doutel concerning Duane Doutel’s need for pre-surgery physical and blood test
    results to ensure that a scheduled surgery proceed as planned.

    18. Officer Zwickler listened to the voice message left by Duane Doutel on the evening of February 15,

    2011, at Dr. Staw’s office.

    19. Duane Doutel’s February 15, 2011, voice message left at Dr. Staw’s office states in its entirety:


    Hi this is Duane Doutel a former patient of Dr. Staw’s ah I paid at my last visit for

    an EKG and a CBC which were pre op and they have not been forwarded despite
    several requests to the surgeon. He will provide those because I paid for them up
    front, I want them forwarded, if I haven’t heard within 48 hours that those results
    have been forwarded to Dr. Altman, I will be walking into the office, and it will
    not be pretty, do you understand me? I paid for those up front, you will provide
    them. I will see to it that a valid A1C is done, not the botched one that Dr. Staw
    ran without fasting. Thank-you.

    20. Dr. Staw informed Officer Zwickler that Duane Doutel regularly carried a revolver with him to his
    checkups and kept it under his clothing in the examination room, conduct described by the office
    manager Janine Roy as “brandishing.”

    21. Dr. Staw’s office manager, Janine Roy, told Officer Zwickler that she believed Duane Doutel was a

    radical right-wing individual with racist ideas.

    22. At that time, Officer Zwickler contacted Norwalk Police Department communications and learned that

    Duane Doutel held a valid Connecticut Pistol Permit.

    23. A records check performed by the Norwalk Police Department informed Officer Zwickler that Duane

    Doutel had several firearms registered under his name.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 3 of 8

    24. When Officer Zwickler telephoned Duane Doutel at his home, Duane Doutel declined to discuss the
    voice message with Officer Zwickler at the Norwalk Police Department.

    25. Officer Zwickler asked Duane Doutel if he would permit Officer Zwickler in his home to discuss the

    voice mail. Duane Doutel initially agreed then had a change of mind and advised Officer Zwickler,
    “Don’t come to my house without a warrant. Don’t come here unless you’re going to arrest me.”

    26. Officer Zwickler then advised Duane Doutel that he would be arriving at the Doutel home to arrest

    Doutel.

    27. Officer Zwickler, Lieutenant Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd,

    and Officer Reda arrived at the Doutel home on February 16, 2011.

    28. When the seven Defendants named in the foregoing paragraph arrived at the Doutel home, Norwalk

    Police Department communications called Doutel and ordered Doutel to exit his home.

    29. Duane Doutel complied with the order from Norwalk Police Department communications, exited his

    home, and stood in his yard.

    30. Officer Fludd and Officer Salley immediately handcuffed and searched Doutel.


    31. The seven Defendants named in paragraph 27, above, compelled Doutel, while under arrest and

    handcuffed, to guide them through his home to locate firearms.

    32. Duane Doutel is a fifty-six year old man, an honorably discharged Veteran, with no criminal history.


    33. The seven Defendants named in paragraph 27, above, seized all firearms in the Doutel home, including

    firearms owned by the Plaintiff and not Duane Doutel, notwithstanding a list of the firearms owned by
    Duane Doutel obtained previously by said seven Defendants.

    34. Said seven Defendants seized all the firearms in the Doutel home as evidence in the arrest of Duane

    Doutel for the voice message left by Duane Doutel at Dr. Staw’s medical office.

    35. The Plaintiff by letter dated May 15, 2011, demanded return of her lawfully owned and possessed

    firearms that were unlawfully seized from her home by members of the Norwalk Police Department on
    February 16, 2011.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 4 of 8

    36. Chief Rilling refused and continues to refuse to return the Plaintiff’s firearms unlawfully seized from her
    home by the seven Defendants, named in paragraph 27, above, on February 16, 2011.

    COUNT ONE: UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF PROPERTY, IN VIOLATION
    OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
    STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST LIEUTENANT
    THOMAS MATERRA, In his Individual and Official Capacities; SERGEANT
    JAMES WALSH, In His Individual and Official Capacities; OFFICER JARED
    ZWICKLER, In His Individual Capacity; OFFICER WILLIAM CURWEN, In His
    Individual Capacity; OFFICER JEREMY SALLEY, In His Individual Capacity;
    OFFICER KENNETH FLUDD, In His Individual Capacity; and OFFICER
    FRANK REDA, In His Individual Capacity)

    37. Paragraphs 1-36, above, are hereby incorporated as alleged by the Plaintiff under Count One.

    38. Lieutenant Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd,

    and Officer Reda, acting under color if state law, seized the Plaintiff’s property on February 16, 2011,
    without a warrant.

    39. In entering the Plaintiff’s home and seizing her property without a warrant, the actions of Lieutenant

    Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd, and Officer
    Reda were objectively unreasonable.

    40. Moreover, in so acting, Lieutenant Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer

    Salley, Officer Fludd, and Officer Reda failed to follow applicable laws and procedures.

    41. Lieutenant Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd,

    and Officer Reda lacked legal grounds to enter the Plaintiff’s home and seize her property on February
    16, 2011.

    42. The unlawful entry into the Plaintiff’s home and seizure of the Plaintiff’s property by Lieutenant

    Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd, and Officer
    Reda without a warrant are the proximate cause of the injury, damages, loss and harm sustained by the
    Plaintiff.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 5 of 8

    COUNT TWO: UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE DUE TO FAILURE TO TRAIN, IN
    VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE
    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST THE CITY OF
    NORWALK; CHIEF HARRY W. RILLING, In His Official Capacity;
    LIEUTENANT THOMAS MATERRA, In His Official Capacity; and SERGEANT
    JAMES WALSH, In His Official Capacity)

    43. Paragraphs 1-36, above, are hereby incorporated as alleged by the Plaintiff under Count Two.

    44. The Plaintiff was injured and sustained loss of property as a result of the City of Norwalk’s failure to

    train its police officers in the application of exceptions to the search warrant requirements of the Fourth
    and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    45. As a result of the City of Norwalk’s failure to adequately train its officers, the Plaintiff’s home was

    unlawfully entered and her property unlawfully seized by Lieutenant Materra, Sergeant Walsh, Officer
    Zwickler, Officer Curwen, Officer Salley, Officer Fludd, and Officer Reda.

    46. The City of Norwalk’s failure to provide adequate and proper training for its officers was cause of

    Plaintiff’s injuries, losses and harms.

    47. As a result of the City of Norwalk’s violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

    States Constitution, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including emotional
    duress and loss of personal property.

    COUNT THREE: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IN VIOLATION OF
    THE SECOND AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED
    STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (AGAINST CHIEF HARRY W.
    RILLING, In His individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT THOMAS
    MATERRA, In his Individual and Official Capacities; SERGEANT JAMES
    WALSH, In His Individual and Official Capacities; OFFICER JARED
    ZWICKLER, In His Individual Capacity; OFFICER WILLIAM CURWEN, In His
    Individual Capacity; OFFICER JEREMY SALLEY, In His Individual Capacity;
    OFFICER KENNETH FLUDD, In His Individual Capacity; and OFFICER
    FRANK REDA, In His Individual Capacity)

    48. Paragraphs 1-36, above, are hereby incorporated as alleged by the Plaintiff under Count Three.

    49. The Plaintiff’s actions were lawful on February 16, 2011, in that she possessed firearms in her home.

    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 6 of 8

    50. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff of the right to possess firearms in her home
    for personal protection as guaranteed under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
    Constitution.

    51. The deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

    States Constitution is evidenced further by Chief Rilling’s refusal to return the Plaintiff’s property
    unlawfully held by Norwalk Police Department.

    52. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

    Constitution, the Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including emotional duress
    and loss of personal property.

    COUNT FOUR: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IN VIOLATION OF
    ARTICLE I, §15 OF THE CONNECTICUT CONSTITUTION (AGAINST CHIEF
    HARRY W. RILLING, In His individual and Official Capacities; LIEUTENANT
    THOMAS MATERRA, In his Individual and Official Capacities; SERGEANT
    JAMES WALSH, In His Individual and Official Capacities; OFFICER JARED
    ZWICKLER, In His Individual Capacity; OFFICER WILLIAM CURWEN, In His
    Individual Capacity; OFFICER JEREMY SALLEY, In His Individual Capacity;
    OFFICER KENNETH FLUDD, In His Individual Capacity; and OFFICER
    FRANK REDA, In His Individual Capacity)

    53. Paragraphs 1-36, above, are hereby incorporated as alleged by the Plaintiff under Count Four.

    54. The Plaintiff’s actions on February 16, 2011, were lawful in that she possessed firearms in her home.


    55. The Defendants’ actions unlawfully deprived the Plaintiff of the right to possess firearms in her home

    for personal protection as guaranteed under Article I, §15 of the Connecticut Constitution.

    56. The deprivation of the Plaintiff’s rights under the Connecticut Constitution is evidenced further by Chief

    Rilling’s refusal to return the Plaintiff’s property unlawfully held by Norwalk Police Department.

    57. As a result of the Defendants’ violations of the Connecticut Constitution, the Plaintiff has suffered and

    will continue to suffer damages, including emotional duress and loss of personal property.
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 7 of 8


    DEMAND FOR RELIEF
    WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff claims:

    1. Compensatory damages, including damages for physical injury, emotional distress and harm to
    reputation;

    2. Punitive damages;

    3. Interest;

    4. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and

    5. Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.

    JURY DEMAND

    Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.


    PLAINTIFF
    BARBARA C. DOUTEL



    BY: /s/ Rachel M. Baird
    Rachel M. Baird (ct 12131)
    Law Office of Rachel M. Baird
    379 Prospect Street
    Torrington CT 06790-5238
    Tel: (860) 626-9991
    Fax: (860) 626-9992
    Email: rbaird@rachelbairdlaw.com
    Case 3:11-cv-01164 Document 1 Filed 07/25/11 Page 8 of 8
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 07-26-2011 at 06:28 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Advocate Article that will make you laugh

    Here is a link to the Advocate article:

    http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/news/blogs/drive-by-media/nh-cranky-old-man-vs-crooked-doctor-20110808,0,5857659.story?track=rss

    The article says Duane was arrested for Harrassment when in fact he was arrested for Threatening in the Second Degree.
    It also says that he lives in an apartment when in fact he lives in a privately own single family house in Norwalk.

    But it is a funny article

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •